Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An Early Look at Obama's Re-elect
Real Clear Politics ^ | 2-9-2011 | Sean Trende

Posted on 02/09/2011 5:56:38 AM PST by Third Person

Coverage of the 2012 elections has recently gone into overdrive, with attention focused largely on two issues: President Obama's standing in the polls and the Electoral College. The two are obviously interrelated. Though it's a bit early to be discussing all of this (there's almost no correlation between a president's standing in the polls at this point and where he ends up in November two years later) it is always useful to examine where things stand today - with the understanding that things may change for the better or for the worse for either party over the next 18 months.

One thing the polling data have confirmed over the last two years is this: President Obama is more popular than his policies. Going back to the earliest days of his presidency, Obama's overall job approval rating has typically been higher than the ratings he's received from voters on most individual issues - particularly on top domestic concerns like the economy, spending, the deficit and health care.

It isn't hard to see why this is so. The president continues to be viewed in the public's eye as a likeable person, a faithful husband and a good father. African American voters and liberal voters continue to adore the president. The historic nature of his presidency drew independent voters to him in 2008, and while they have abandoned him and his party in droves over the last two years over policy issues, they continue to have a certain level of affection for him personally.

Because the president generates so much personal goodwill, then, it isn't clear that his approval rating has the same political effects that other presidents' approval ratings do.

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
From the article:

"What might this mean for the Electoral College map? This is even more difficult to address this far in advance of the election. Chris Cillizza had an interesting recent article on the topic entitled "Obama Could Survive Some Bumps on Road to 2012 Re-election." Cilizza looks at the 2008 results, notes that Obama scored 365 electoral votes in 2008, and concludes that he has room to spare. The article title would be correct for early 2009. But the president has endured many, many bumps since winning his 365 electoral votes. This has weakened him significantly in many states. For example, he won North Carolina and Indiana by a combined 40,000 votes, when the Republican Party was in the midst of a perfect storm. It seems highly unlikely that he would win these states today, especially after the 2010 election results in these states."

"Similarly, given the results of 2009 and 2010, Virginia, Ohio and Florida are looking iffy for the president. This is especially true of Florida, where a very weak Republican gubernatorial candidate beat a highly touted Democratic candidate last year, and where a very conservative Republican just missed winning a majority of the vote in the three-way Senate race. These states, plus reapportionment changes, would bring Republicans close to an Electoral College victory."

"Democrats will doubtless reiterate that the 2012 electorate is unlikely to look like the 2010 electorate. This is true; however the likely Obama surge is built into the above analysis. But consider this: if you take the 2008 turnout levels, but model the white vote to resemble 2010, President Obama would lose, albeit narrowly. Set the Democrats' share of the white vote to halfway between 2008 and 2010, and President Obama would win narrowly."

"Even then, recreating the 2008 electorate will be difficult for the Democrats. For one thing, the president is no longer the candidate of change; public anger at the status quo will now be directed at him, rather than Republicans. Also, the historic nature of re-electing the first black president seems much less than that of electing him. In other words, re-energizing casual Democratic voters to the extent that he did in 2008 is tough."

"More importantly, he has little control over Republican voters. During the post-convention period, when McCain and Obama were running neck-in-neck in the polls, Republicans claimed to be about as enthusiastic about voting as Democrats. Gallup showed a dramatic drop-off in Republican enthusiasm after the passage of TARP; this coincided with Obama's final lead opening up. The GOP may be similarly unenthused about 2012, but it seems unlikely (again, depending on the nominee). In other words, the GOP doesn't need to be on the positive side of the enthusiasm gap to make 2012 much closer than 2008; it just needs to motivate its own troops to close it."

1 posted on 02/09/2011 5:56:40 AM PST by Third Person
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Third Person

Where’s the birth certificate?


2 posted on 02/09/2011 6:02:57 AM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Third Person

Americans are stupid. Obama is a lock to be re-elected.


3 posted on 02/09/2011 6:04:41 AM PST by brownsfan (D - swift death of the republic, R - lingering death for the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Third Person

If the Republicans put up another dud like John McCain, it won’t matter anyway. Obama will win re-election no matter what the polls on his policies say.

Everything will hinge upon the candidate we put forth. We’d better be on our game this time.


4 posted on 02/09/2011 6:06:32 AM PST by reagan_fanatic (A communist is just a liberal in a hurry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Third Person

Obama will win by default if his opposition continues to splinter behind factional Palinites, Randites, Mittites, etc.

There needs to be an obvious leader in the field, and she isn’t.


5 posted on 02/09/2011 6:08:55 AM PST by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Third Person
As always, the squishy independents will determine the outcome of the next presidential election.

And also as always, the media will pick the lousy Republican candidate in Iowa and New Hampshire and OWEbama will win again, which is likely to shuttle the planet towards Armageddon. Not kidding. Sorry.

6 posted on 02/09/2011 6:14:38 AM PST by subterfuge (BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Third Person
Sean, honey,...Have you been living in a cave?

Sean,...States all over the nation have introduced legislation that demands that candidates provide certified documentation that PROVES they are who they say they are. and are qualified, constitutionally, for the position.

So,..Sean,...Even if none if this legislation passes, we **KNOW** that there are plenty of totally TICKED-off legislators ( many of them lawyers, themselves) who will demand that Obama prove that he is a natural born citizen.

7 posted on 02/09/2011 6:21:13 AM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Third Person

1)The GOP will run Romney who picks Huckabee

2) American voters will too busy watching American Idol

3) the media will be in overdrive about ‘Do we REALLY want to return to 2000-2008??”

4) Tea Party sits out Presidential elections and focuses on the Senate.

5) Gop holds Congress and retakes Senate 54-46

6) DeMint Senate Majority leader and he has a plan..

7) Palin sits out but does play congressional kingmaker again

8) The reelection of Obama 46-44 is the last victory from the MSM, who immediately eliminate nightly news casts, NY Times is bought out by Trump and the Washington Post is neutered. Numerous third parties run.

9) Gas is 6 bucks a gallon, unemployment is officially 9.8% , the GNP is at a standstill yet Obama with a 1 billion dollar warchest wins anyway

10) American sheeple breathe a sigh of relief that no riots occur after numerous rumors of urban mayhem will happen if Obama is not reelected.

Just My predictions..


8 posted on 02/09/2011 6:21:43 AM PST by Le Chien Rouge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Le Chien Rouge
that's fine and all, but you didn't say who won American Idol
9 posted on 02/09/2011 6:23:13 AM PST by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Third Person; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; calcowgirl; Gilbo_3; ...
RE :”One thing the polling data have confirmed over the last two years is this: President Obama is more popular than his policies. Going back to the earliest days of his presidency, Obama’s overall job approval rating has typically been higher than the ratings he's received from voters on most individual issues - particularly on top domestic concerns like the economy, spending, the deficit and health care. Because the president generates so much personal goodwill, then, it isn't clear that his approval rating has the same political effects that other presidents’ approval ratings do.

Friends, I tried to warn you last year, get Pelosi out of the way and Obama loses his political anchor dragging him down. It is still early but so far I don't see the new Republican congress effectively fighting Obama.

Not only did Obama lose Pelosi as a drag on him, but now he has little or no responsibility to get things passed making it even easier for him. He will call for new ‘critical investments’ at the SOTU address, then ask the Chamber of Commerce to support them getting passed, then go on the FNC BoR show and look ‘reasonable’ (thanks to worthless Bill), and just sit back and tell Republicans to deliver.

By about August it will be obvious who has the upper hand.

10 posted on 02/09/2011 6:28:37 AM PST by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Third Person

Below are the states offer a guaranteed lock or a strong likelihood of going 0bama’s way, for a total of 259 EV. Included are some states whose statehouse and legislatures changed over after the Nov 2 elections, because presidential elections draw more minorities to the polls.

In short, beating 0bama will be a steep climb. He’ll have a big advantage going in.

CALIFORNIA (Lock)55

NEW JERSEY (Likely)15

COLORADO (Likely) 9

NEW MEXICO (Likely) 5

CONNECTICUT (Lock) 7

NEW YORK (Lock) 31

DELAWARE (Lock) 3

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Lock) 3

HAWAII (Lock) 4

OREGON (Lock) 7

PENNSYLVANIA (Likely) 21

ILLINOIS (Lock) 21

RHODE ISLAND (Lock) 4

IOWA (Likely) 7

MAINE (Likely) 4

VERMONT (Lock) 3

MARYLAND (Lock) 10

MASSACHUSETTS (Lock) 12

WASHINGTON (Lock) 11

MICHIGAN (Likely) 17

MINNESOTA (Lock) 10


11 posted on 02/09/2011 6:32:40 AM PST by ScottinVA (The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Third Person

The article does make a good point that many people at least respect the fact that he is not the same reprobate in his personal life that Bill Clinton was.

But that will not be enough to save him with high unemployment, a skyrocketing misery index, and tumult and chaos in general rocking the globe. I doubt his re-elect numbers at the ballot box will break 40%.

The danger is that might be enough though if the GOP nominates another limp-wristed milquetoast, and a fire-breating economic populist gets on the ballot as a 3rd choice. Then you would have 4 more years of an extremely weak Obama with GOP majorities in the House and Senate.


12 posted on 02/09/2011 6:35:50 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hegewisch Dupa

“that’s fine and all, but you didn’t say who won American Idol “

Willow Palin....Tea Party conducts a massive call-in to give her the crown.

This Totally pisses off the left more than losing the SENATE.


13 posted on 02/09/2011 6:37:08 AM PST by Le Chien Rouge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Le Chien Rouge
Just My predictions..

Good Predictions, Probably pretty accurate. I think that Unemployment will be higher and that the GOP congress will not be able to hold it down due to in-grained "Wishy-Washiness" and loosing sight of America's TRUE needs.

14 posted on 02/09/2011 6:39:18 AM PST by TexGuy (If it has the slimmest of chances of being considered sarcasm ... IT IS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
"Friends, I tried to warn you last year, get Pelosi out of the way and Obama loses his political anchor dragging him down."

If Pelosi were still in charge, perhaps we would stand a better chance of beating Obama in 2012. However, look how much more damage these clowns could do to our country over the next two years. More debt, more cementing of the Obamacare.

At least now, we have a chance at some sane fiscal budgets, some tearing apart of Obamacare, etc. With the added bonus that Pelosi is still in a leadership position. She can still be on those TV adds. Remember, those Dems re-elected her and Harry Reid is still there to be plastered on campaign commercials.
15 posted on 02/09/2011 6:39:21 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Where’s the birth certificate?


Which one is your real SSN?

“All told, there are 49 addresses and 16 different Social Security numbers listed for a person whose name is spelled “Barack Obama.” In some cases, the middle initial “H” is listed. If you were to expand the search to include closely related names such as: “Barac,” “Barak,” and “Barrack” Obama, you would find more than a dozen additional addresses and Social Security numbers.”

....

“Nevertheless, all this mystery surrounding Obama appears to be a generational thing. Researchers have discovered nearly a dozen aliases, at least two different Social Security numbers, and upwards of over 99 separate addresses for Ann Dunham, his mother. We do know she worked for the ultra liberal Ford Foundation but we also know she may have earned some income from pornographic poses, as evidenced by photos recently discovered by some researchers—how embarrassing. The only thing researchers are able to find out about Obama’s mother is the fact she made porn. I’m sure that’s a first for presidential mothers.”

http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/the-mystery-of-barack-obama-continues/


16 posted on 02/09/2011 6:42:27 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Le Chien Rouge

very nicely done!


17 posted on 02/09/2011 6:48:30 AM PST by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

As thing stand today,I don’t see Obama taking any states in the South next time. If he loses in Ohio, which appears likely now, he can’t win re-election.


18 posted on 02/09/2011 7:09:33 AM PST by nailspitter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nailspitter
If he loses in Ohio

Losing Ohio is the ONLY way he doesn't win. And if he takes North Carolina or Florida again it won't matter.

19 posted on 02/09/2011 7:25:03 AM PST by ScottinVA (The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic
If the Republicans put up another dud like John McCain, it won’t matter anyway. Obama will win re-election no matter what the polls on his policies say.

My guess is that given a crowded Republican primary field we will inevitably get a 'moderate' (RINO) nominee. A moderate will inevitably go down to defeat against Obama. The party needs to provide clear policy differences with this administration and not be gun-shy (can I still say that) about controversy this will inevitably create.

20 posted on 02/09/2011 7:35:57 AM PST by Tallguy (Received a fine from the NFL for a helmet-to-helmet hit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
RE :”If Pelosi were still in charge, perhaps we would stand a better chance of beating Obama in 2012. However, look how much more damage these clowns could do to our country over the next two years. More debt, more cementing of the Obamacare.

I understand that voting Democrat or holding back voting in 2010 to win the next election (2012) would be a very risky/cynical strategy. (although losing RINO seats might of helped in the House.)

On the other hand if Pelosi had a 10 Seat majority and Reid had his 3 seat majority everything could be blocked, and Democrats would have all the responsibility on them to produce.

Looking forward, I don't see an effective strategy emerging to beat Obama politically with the new House majority. just calling him a socialist wont do it anymore like it did last year because his is playing 'Mr Reasonable' and Pelosi is gone.

21 posted on 02/09/2011 9:06:03 AM PST by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: brownsfan

Americans are stupid.
NO just the non voters are.


22 posted on 02/09/2011 9:20:18 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Le Chien Rouge

Other than the unwarranted optimism about the House and Senate, that sounds about right...


23 posted on 02/09/2011 9:31:03 AM PST by Little Ray (The Gods of the Copybook Heading, with terror and slaughter return!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Third Person

By 2012, The National Popular Vote bill could guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). That candidate would get the needed 270 electoral votes.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning districts or states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

In the 2012 election, some pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters– voters in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, FL – 78%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ID – 77%, ME — 77%, MT – 72%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, OK – 81%, RI — 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT — 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, VA — 74%, and WV – ‘81%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, OR – 76%, and WA — 77%.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

http://www.NationalPopularVote.com


24 posted on 02/09/2011 12:06:11 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

We have to run the table on the rest to win. Not impossible, but difficult.

We’ll have to have a decent nominee to do it. Not Palin, not Romney, not Huck.

Herman Cain, Jim DeMint, Bobby Jindal, or maybe even (eek) Mitch Daniels...they could do it!


25 posted on 02/10/2011 9:13:47 AM PST by RockinRight (if the choice is between Crazy and Commie, I choose Crazy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mvymvy

The support numbers change, however, if the people polled are made to truly understand the impact the EC has.


26 posted on 02/10/2011 9:16:36 AM PST by RockinRight (if the choice is between Crazy and Commie, I choose Crazy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

Are you referring to these polls?

In the 3 state examples of polling 800 voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state’s winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

Question 1: “How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?”
Question 2: “Do you think it more important that a state’s electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?”

Support for a National Popular Vote

South Dakota — 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
see http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages...php#SD_2009MAY

Connecticut — 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2.
see http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages...php#CT_2009MAY

Utah — 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2.
see http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages...php#UT_2009MAY


27 posted on 02/10/2011 6:10:47 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

Most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was counted and mattered to their candidate.


28 posted on 02/10/2011 6:11:48 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson